Yosemite reminds me of Mountain Lion. How about you?

Discussion in 'OS X Yosemite (10.10)' started by KoolAid-Drink, Oct 18, 2014.

  1. KoolAid-Drink macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #1
    In some ways, so far, Yosemite reminds me much of Mountain Lion. A 'refining' of the Mac experience. ML refined what Lion left agape, just as Yosemite refined what Mavericks messed up/skipped. An example is Time Machine - in Mavericks, for some reason, no matter which folder you were in when you entered Time Machine, the window would just jump to your ~/ folder. Very annoying! Despite me reporting this, and this being prevalent through the entire DP's/actual builds of Mavericks (10.9.0-.5), Apple didn't fix it. They fixed it in Yosemite. Another example is adding back 3-finger swipe in Finder (which existed in ML, but was removed in Mavericks).

    Overall, the whole experience just feels much smoother and polished. I remember 10.8.0 as being a VERY smooth x.0 release of OS X (when, traditionally, other x.0 releases had issues/glitches). 10.9.0 was the opposite - don't even want to go there again. So far, even though it's only been a day and an half, I'm REALLY liking Yosemite so far.

    Oh, and when upgrading from SL to Mavericks, with multiple user accounts, wallpapers didn't stick after the upgrade to Mavericks. They were preserved just fine with ML and Yosemite. Another example of how sloppy Mavericks was. General conventional wisdom is to be cautious with the odd versions of OS X (10.5/10.7/10.9), and to look at the even versions (10.6/10.8/10.10) as more reliable/trustworthy.

    A little, somewhat irrelevant, but still cute detail, is that ML was named after a mountain lion. Yosemite is also a big mountain. Just another way both OS'es come across as similar.

    What do y'all think?
     
  2. KoolAid-Drink thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #2
    Bump. Curious for your thoughts.

    Another example: much faster shutdowns/restarts, so far. Definitely an improvement over Mavericks, and brought it back to ML <10.8.1 levels.
     
  3. Primejimbo macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Location:
    Around
    #3
    I upgraded my Mac Mini to Mavericks not to long ago because Mountain Lion was working fine. After reading all the nice stuff with Yosemite, I was exited to try it out, but didn't want to upgrade the Mac Min yet. My old Aluminum Macbook got used about 4-8 times since I got my iPad Air when it came out last year. I didn't have a use for my Macbook, so I never upgraded from Snow Leopard.

    Yesterday I downloaded Yosemite to the Mac Mini (didn't upgrade it) and made a bootable USB drive. Since my Macbook was getting pop up errors and just slow (only 2 GB of RAM), I did a fresh install on the Macbook. I am amazed how nice it runs on this old clunker. It's not fast, but it is faster than what it was. I'm thinking about getting more RAM for it and just keep this around in case I need it.
     
  4. x34 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    #4
    yes, i agree with the OP.

    while lion and mavericks were total ****, mountain lion and yosemite are much much better.
     
  5. fiveainone macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    #5
    Hmm, I guess it sort of feels like like ML in terms of polishness. I'm sure others will disagree, but I have no problems so far. As far as names, every other OS were named after something.. Mavericks was a beach.. Snow Leopard is a Snow Leopard..
     
  6. fiveainone macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    #6
    Also not sure if it's actually starting faster. We just get the password prompt faster, but now there's a load bar after you enter the info.
     
  7. bbfc macrumors 68030

    bbfc

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2011
    Location:
    Newcastle, England.
    #7
    I disagree. I thought Lion and ML were quite bad, but Mavericks (with it's improved Memory Management) gave my MBP a new lease of like.
     
  8. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #8
    Your short review echoes much of what the ArsTechnica review said.
     
  9. KoolAid-Drink thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #9
    Hmm really? Where in the ArsTechnica review is Yosemite likened to ML?
     
  10. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #10
    My bad. They likened it to Snow Leopard. It wasn't a criticism - what you said echoed some of the sentiments in the review.
     
  11. jfischer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2014
    #11
    Except in my case (and many others), Time Machine is totally borked in Yosemite and does not work worth a turd. In my case, TM cannot be browsed, nor can you change the folder to view once in TM. Or if it does work, it's very intermittent and very rarely works as it should. There are also graphical glitches when viewing Time Machine that make it look unfinished as well.

    And I could swear that in previous version of TM, the up/down arrows took you back/forward one backup. In Yosemite they take you to either the newest or oldest backup, and you have to use the bars on the right side of the screen to choose a different date that isn't either the first or last backup.

    It was broken throughout the beta process (and I turned in reports about it as did many others I'm sure) and it still doesn't work right in the RTM version for a lot of folks.
     
  12. KoolAid-Drink thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #12
    Yeah... no 10.x.0 release has ever been perfect. AFAIK, ML 10.8.0 had its own share of glitches. I'm sure, with the number of complaints about TM, Apple will fix it by x.1 or x.2.

    If you have access to bugreport.apple.com, file a report. You'll hear back from the Dev team, unlike if you're part of the public beta.

    Overall, do you guys see the pattern? 10.6, 10.8, and 10.10 share similarities of being more refined and polished/stable, while 10.5, 10.7, and 10.9 have more flaws/quirks and aren't as polished?
     
  13. msh macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Location:
    SoCal
    #13
    I like the look and some of the features of Yosemite. But SMB file sharing with Windows doesn't work as well as Mavericks which itself never worked well anyway. Some other features are buggy like Time Machine, those annoying multiple instances of other shared Macs, etc. No new ZFS-like file system. They did fix the issue of Safari's handling of color profiles with wide gamut monitors.

    Overall, mostly flash and little substance.
     

Share This Page